Was the crime one that caused physical harm to someone else? Killed someone? (Or more than one person/living thing, if applicable)? Was it a crime involving money (robbery? burglary? embezzlement? blackmail? something else?) was the crime committed against a single person? multiple people? a group/organization? was it a series of related crimes?

would this scenario work in the present day? 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 50 years ago? 100? 500? 1000? 2000? More?

Was the crime one that caused physical harm to someone else? Killed someone? (Or more than one person/living thing, if applicable)? Was it a crime involving money (robbery? This burglary? And this embezzlement? blackmail? something else?)

was the crime committed against a single person? multiple people? Assume this a group/organization? was it a series of related crimes?

would this scenario work in the present day? 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 50 years ago? From a little later than here to the present day. Say within the past 70 years 100? 500? 1000? 2000? More?

Is some kind of technology relevant? That has been around for the last 70 years? television? telephone? radio? cars? planes? (I know that they're all older, but at the beginning, they weren't that popular)

was he stealing from poor people? middle class people? This rich people? was there a pattern to his thefts? FA were his victims strangers to him? This people he knew? neighbors? friends? relatives?

Is some kind of technology relevant? I don't know if it would be considered "technology," so Yope That has been around for the last 70 years? Yestelevision? telephone? radio? cars? planes? (I know that they're all older, but at the beginning, they weren't that popular) No to all

Did he commit just one theft? Is the stolen item(s) relevant? Is it relevant how much time elapsed between theft and being caught? Did the burglar had a good, reasonable reason to believe he would have gotten away with his crime? Was he caught by accident? Did he commit any other relevant crime or misdemeanour?

Did he commit just one theft? Yes Is the stolen item(s) relevant? NoIs it relevant how much time elapsed between theft and being caught? Yes. Assume it was less than a dayDid the burglar had a good, reasonable reason to believe he would have gotten away with his crime? YesWas he caught by accident? YopeDid he commit any other relevant crime or misdemeanour? No

Did the burglar leave any material evidence on the scene? Yesish -- DOYD of "material evidence" Did someone see the burglar while committing the crime? No Did the burglar tell anybody about the crime? No

was he wearing high heels? sandals? orthapaedic shoes? boots? stilts? roller skates? golf shoes? football boots? Irrel. The point is that once the police got the footprints, they knew who the owner of the shoes was and identified the criminal.

did he wear two different size shoes? and he had to specially order them from the store? because he had two different size feet? Irrelmy feet are like that...O_O Really? I did not know that. Interesting.

You don't need to know what's special about the shoes. What you do need to know is how the footprints were found.

Did he protect his shoes with a substance which enabled him to leave no ordinary footprints? No But the substance is visible under UV light, what he didn't know? No, but a substance visible under UV light is relevant.

Hmm,I wonder how they could identify him with cat urine footprints... Did they realise he had stepped in urine, and then checked something else? Like the cat scratched him? Or did the footprints themselves give away his identity?

Hmm,I wonder how they could identify him with cat urine footprints... This part's pretty much been figured out: cat urine glows under a blacklight, and while searching the scene with one, they found the footprints. Did they realise he had stepped in urine, and then checked something else? Like the cat scratched him? Or did the footprints themselves give away his identity? This.

All you need to know is why there was cat urine on the floor. You know it was from the owner's cat, but there's a little piece left.

Hmm,I wonder how they could identify him with cat urine footprints... This part's pretty much been figured out: cat urine glows under a blacklight, and while searching the scene with one, they found the footprints. Did they realise he had stepped in urine, and then checked something else? Like the cat scratched him? Or did the footprints themselves give away his identity? This.

All you need to know is why there was cat urine on the floor. You know it was from the owner's cat, but there's a little piece left.

Was the cat scared? Yes ill? NoOr was it something else that the burglar did that cause a natural reaction in the cat? Not exactly, but I think you've got enough now.

**********SPOILER**********

A burglar broke into a house in order to rob it. However, his presence scared the home's cat, who urinated on the floor in fright. The burglar stepped in the cat urine during the course of the robbery, leaving footprints that were discovered with the aid of a UV light during the investigation (cat urine glows under a blacklight). The footprints were used to identify the criminal.